Practical

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To see if there is a relationship between childhood secure attachment (measured on a questionnaire out of 30) and adulthood secure attachment (measured on a questionnaire out of 30)

Question 2

Variable

Answer 2

Co-The correlarion between child relationships and adult relationships

Independant-time in which you had these relationships

Dependant-scores out of 5 on a scale about secure relationships as a child and as an adult

V1-securely attached or not
V2-relationships of adult/child

Question 3

-EV

Answer 3

Social desirability

Age of ppt (memory-retrospective)

Mood of their current relationship (eg if they had a fight this week they won’t like them as much)

Question 4

Hypothesis

Answer 4

There will be a cause and effect relationship between secure attachment as a child and secure attachment as an adult.

Question 5

Sample

Answer 5

20 men and women
North East of England NSFC
Opportunity
Aged 17-19

Question 6

Apparatus/questions

Answer 6

5 questions for both adult and child questionnaires (all like it or rate it scales from 1-5)

Child

1) how close to care giver (1-5)
2) easily comforted (yes/no)
3) make friends easy (1-5)
4) worried on separation of care giver (yes/no)
5) how responsive were parents (1-5)

Adult

1) how close to friends (1-5)
2) easily comforted (yes/no)
3) make friends easy (1-5)
4) miss your friends? (1-5)
5) ow responsive are you (1-5)

Question 7

-Generalisability

Answer 7

• Ethnocentric (all from North East England)
• small sample (20)
• opportunity (shared characteristics but easy)
• males and females (represent both genders attachment types in the real world)

Question 8

Reliability

Answer 8

+standardised questions about attachments they have - repeat it

Question 9

Validity

Answer 9

• SD (about their relationship want perfection)
• retrospective (may not remember)
• DC (might guess what questionnaire is about and change their answer)
• opinion (subjective)
• closed Qs (not enough depth)
• ranking scales (interpretation)
• correlation (no cause and effect)

Question 10

Ethics

Answer 10

• harm (may upset a person due to sensative topic)
• Confidentiality (anonymous)
• informed consent (in doing the questionnaire we have consent but not informed due to DC)
• withdrawl (not given but they could stop at any time)
• no debrief

Question 11

Results

Answer 11

There was no significant relationship between the questionnaire score (out of 25) for childhood secure attachment and questionnaire score (out of 25) for adult secure attachment.

The spearman rank/rho score was 0.084 and the critical value was 0.380 at P<0.05 (one tailed) meaning there is no correlation between childhood attachment, disproving the internal working model.

Reject the hypothesis.. The results could be due to chance.

Question 12

Method

Answer 12

2 scales on questionnaire- adulthood and security and childhood security
Each question max of 5
Perform spearmans rho on results

Qualitative data for correlation

Question 13

Securely attached

Answer 13

Child
Conformed easily
Separation anx
Stranger anx
Joy on reunion
Safe base
Responsive parents

Adult
Seeks comfort from friends
Separation anx
Trust them
Joy on reunion
Freinds are secure base

Question 14

Null hypothesis

Answer 14

there will be a relationship between the score found in the relationship in childhood questionnaire and the score found in the relationship in adulthood questionnaire.

Question 15

Procedure

Answer 15

You made a questionnaire featuring closed questions (all likrt/ rating scales SD D N A SA) about childhood. Ie ‘I miss my partner when they are not around’
we debriefed ppts after taking questionnaires and explained what attachment type they re and what it means

Question 16

Analysing data

Answer 16

Scored the litkrt scales Q (making sure higher scored indicated secure attachment some were reversed scored)
We put their scores from childhood attachment in one colomn and their score for adult attachment in the next one
We used spearmans rho to calculate the significance